[Proposal] Spotlight Regions

[Americastrailia]

Spotlight Regions

I have developed this proposal largely in response to this topic in gameplay. The goal of this proposal is to add a feature that revitalizes gameplay in a relatively simple way, without negatively impacting everyone else. It involves a new kind of region which inherently gets a lot of visibility, called a spotlight region. Since I assume this quality is somewhat coveted, they will be difficult to create and vulnerable to the effects of gameplay. In addition to the obvious gameplay benefits, I believe there are certain types of regions that would thrive in this environment.

Summary
There would be a new type of region (spotlight regions) that would receive more publicity than other regions, but at the cost of being guaranteed to become open to raids after six months. Presumably, lots of people would want to found them, but the value of these regions would come from their exclusive publicity. Therefore, the process for creating them would be both selective and limit how often they can be founded.

Feature Details
First let me describe the workings of Spotlight regions; how they are founded, how they are visible, and how they work internally.

1. Founding
The appeal of spotlight regions is in their unique visibility to the world at large. It can safely be assumed many people would found these regions if they could, and therefore restrictions must be imposed on their founding.

The delegates of the warzones act as gatekeepers to the founding of spotlight regions. After one month in office, they may choose one nation in the world to found one spotlight region, in a similar fashion to choosing ROs. A delegate may assign new spotlight founders if one month has passed since their last assignment.

2. The Spotlight
Somewhere prominent on the site will be the spotlight list. I have no preference, just so long as it is in a place where it will frequently be seen. Somewhere on the World page would be nice, like below (or in place of) the featured region. Or move the WA census report to the WA page and use that space for the spotlight. Or perhaps somewhere else would work better Again, what's important is that people, especially new people, see the spotlight regions.

Since there will be multiple spotlight regions, they will need to be ordered somehow. The simplest way I can think of is put the older ones first. This should keep the value of a new spotlight region in check, and help guarantee the value of older spotlight regions. I will explore other options for this later.

3. Internal Rules
The point of all this is to enhance the gameplay sphere. Spotlight regions will spend most of their existence free of founder powers, totally open to invasion. However, for their first six months, they will simply exist as glorified UCRs. They cannot be passworded, however the delegate may destroy the region with the click of a button if they would have had the influence to both eject everyone and place a password in any other region.

---

With the basic idea out of the way, I will dive into the predicted outcomes, concerns, and possible directions to take spotlight regions.

Warzones

Will this lead to the warzones becoming significant targets of raids?
I don't believe so, at least not in terms of frequency. It would be far easier to politely ask a warzone delegate for the opportunity to lead a spotlight region than plan a raid, and with six delegates you can apply to, you have pretty good odds.

How might this affect the culture of the warzones?
I think this will generally bring more relevance to the warzones, and thus draw the attention of more people to any communities there. I can't think of any scenario in which this would detract from a warzone culture, but I can think of a few ways it might add to it. For instance, I predict warzones would exchange spotlight regions for endorsements on their delegate. Perhaps someone will make an NS reality show where contestants compete against each other and the winner gets to be a spotlight founder. Honestly, people could take this in a lot of directions.

What kind of influence could the warzones have?
To me the most interesting aspect of this is the defined relationship warzones will have with their daughter spotlight regions. An established warzone community that chooses good founders can end up with a handful of close allies invested in protecting the region. This could lead to warzone-centric factions built around various ideologies, capable of serious relationships with feeders, sinkers, and influential UCRs.


The Spotlight

Which page will host the spotlight?
Like I said, I think the World page makes the most sense. However, they could easily fit somewhere else. For example, what if issue authors could pick a spotlight region, and at the bottom of the issue there would be a line saying "This issue sponsored by %REGION%"? Or the spotlight region could have its own page (accessed from the world page) and the welcome telegram new nations receive could link to that page. I need input and ideas here.

How will spotlight regions be ordered?
The only rule is they cannot be ordered simply by number of nations. Of course the number of WA nations could work, but my gut says do it by age of the region, so the value of being listed is at least consistent. And honestly, we could go with that and come up with something else after the fact, if there is a better way.

Will the spotlight be enough to entice people?
The value of being in the spotlight is pretty ambiguous, and for me that is part of the fun. All that matters is enough people think this is worth doing to keep several spotlight regions around. At the very least, people like being seen, and they like gambling. So this should see plenty of use by players with adventurous ideas for regions.

Could we have a perk other than spotlight?
Yes. There are all kinds of things we could use so long as it entices people to found the region in spite of the risk. However, I do not believe anything other than the spotlight strikes nearly the right balance between usability, ease of implementation, and minimal impact on existing regions. I had considered stamps, but that would only contribute to flooding the inboxes of new players. I had considered making these feeders or sinkers, but that negatively affects existing regions. If you have another perk you think would work, please comment down below!

Gameplay Effects

What keeps the number of spotlight regions in check?
I expect we would have roughly 50-100 spotlight regions at any given time. This is because although the maximum number of such regions which can be founded in a year is 72, in practice I expect maybe 30. Next, all spotlight regions except those founded in the last six months are destructible. So in the first year, only 15 of these regions will have become open to raiding, and most of those will be in the process of getting destroyed by a combination of raiders and invaders from newer regions trying to rise to the top. In the long term, the value of a new spotlight region will fall, so fewer people will go out and make them. If things do get out of control, we can lengthen the assignment time of warzone delegates, or add decaying influence to spotlight regions.

What about raiders placing sleepers in new regions and waiting six months?
There are ways to counter that, and in this context it is a good thing to thin the herd. However, if that does become a problem, we could give founders an influence advantage, such as gaining twice as much influence as other nations.

Why would raiders attack these regions? They're just like warzones.
I know it sounds like these are some empty GCRs set out explicitly for the purpose of being raided, but the difference between them and warzones is someone had to go out and make them. Yes, they knew full well the region would likely get raided, but the bans are permanent, and who doesn't like a little bit of ad space? And besides, raiders aren't the only threats out there - we could easily end up with a king-of-the hill scenario where a spotlight region explicitly tries to conquer all the warzones and raze the other spotlight regions, to gain a monopoly on the spotlight list.

Why would defenders defend these regions? They're just like warzones.
Hmmm... sounds like a fun issue for defenders to argue about among themselves. Regardless, any spotlight region worth its salt should be forming relationships with other regions preemptive to an attack.

---

Further Discussion
Here are a few questions and details I would like to explore further:

Should there be a cap on the number of spotlight regions?
Although I expect that things would balance out, I could be wrong and we could somehow end up with hundreds of spotlight regions in the next few years. Implementing a cap could be a useful fail-safe to keep things from getting out of hand, or it could add to the drama of these regions.

Where do we put the spotlight list?
I would say this is the most important issue to address, since the location of the spotlight directly influences the overall value of these regions. Prominence is key, but I also don't want to cause undue harm to the page that hosts the spotlight. Here are some options for discussion:

1. Somewhere on the world page. It is prominent, and therefore a natural place to consider.
2. On the change region page. It's not as prominent as the world page, and is harder to navigate to, but it is a place some newer players actively looking for a different region are likely to end up. Thus it is a valuable space and would not be too intrusive on current features.
3. A new page. The value of this is more up in the air. If no one sees it, then this feature is pointless. To help we could link new players to the page in their welcome telegram, but that could hurt the effectiveness of the welcome telegram.

How do we order the spotlight regions?
Simplest and possibly most effective would be to order them by age, but it is worth considering other options:

1. Oldest first. This would create some stability, but also create an incentive for newer spotlights to try and destroy older ones.
2. Youngest first. This creates massive upfront value for new spotlight regions (pro), but means older regions' value degrades over time (con).
3. Dynamic random order. This would equalize the value of all spotlight regions at any given time.
4. Number of WA nations. More popular regions would be listed first.
5. Gatekeeper endorsements. Regions would be listed based on the warzone delegate's endorsement count at the time of the region's creation.
6. Founder Population. Older players' regions would be listed first.
7. World census rankings. This could encourage spotlight regions to be more unique compared to other spotlight regions.
8. Average time since last login of WA nations (anything within 1 day counts as zero). More active regions would be listed first.

Should founders get perks?
All spotlight regions would eventually become open to invasion, but the founders of these regions may put a lot of work into growing them. Although helping gameplay is one goal of spotlight regions, I think it makes sense to give founders an advantage that would help them defend their region, that is not limited to their six months of total security. I personally think having them gain twice as much influence as normal would be good, but I would love to explore other ideas.

Thanks in advance for any support or feedback on this idea!
(Also, a special thanks to The Church of Satan! His feedback helped me shape some of the finer details of this proposal)

[Custadia]

Pretty cool idea. It would be neat to give a big recruitment advantage to UCRs that act mechanically like warzones and can only be founded by players who meet certain exacting criteria.

[The Church of Satan]

I like the idea and the goal behind it. More than anything what I like most is that despite being a more refined concept of the warzones, it adds to the value of warzones as well as being more flexible in the way that it can grow on its own instead of being reliant on the game's administration. Allowing players the opportunity to create these kind of regions is very appealing to me.

[Jar Wattinree]

Such a region is called "Featured".

[Sundowers]

Such a region is called "Featured".

that's not at all like what this proposal is about.


BTW I like the idea, I hope this along with factions gets some attention.


Edit: I may have missed this, but is there a cap on how many spotlighted regions could be created?

[The Church of Satan]

Such a region is called "Featured".

that's not at all like what this proposal is about.


BTW I like the idea, I hope this along with factions gets some attention.


Edit: I may have missed this, but is there a cap on how many spotlighted regions could be created?

Ideally no. With a finite amount of regions this concept would be little more than the warzones themselves, inevitably having the same result. With the potential for unlimited growth this idea becomes self-sustaining in a way.

[Americastrailia]

This is tangentially related to my proposal, but I am curious what people think of this other idea for modifying the rules of founding UCRs to involve GCRs more:

The delegates of GCRs would generally be involved with the founding of any major region. Any nation would still be able to create a new region on their own, but it would be permanently passworded. Delegates could appoint an RO to exercise the following gate-keeping powers:

• Feeder delegates would gate-keep non-executive regions, with no limit on frequency. Founders of these regions would have full executive authority for the first year of their region's existence.
• Sinker delegates would gate-keep for Spotlight regions, with a frequency of 1 month.
• Warzone delegates would gate-keep what we now consider to be regular regions, with a frequency of 1 month.

Alternatively, we could just go with: The approval of a GCR delegate (or Founding RO) is necessary to found a new non-passworded region, and each GCR is temporally limited in how many such regions they can help create.

The point of this is to invite the would-be founders of publicly available regions to try involving themselves in the operations of a large region first, before going off on their own. It also carries the nice side-benefit of defining relationships between GCRs and UCRs, thus tying together the public areas of the game. Note that this specifically allow anyone to create a private region for them and their friends, but require social effort and negotiation to create a public region.

Anyways, I just wanted thoughts on this. I don't expect it to go anywhere, and I am content with trying to pursue the main proposal of this topic.

[Bears Armed]

This is tangentially related to my proposal, but I am curious what people think of this other idea for modifying the rules of founding UCRs to involve GCRs more:

The delegates of GCRs would generally be involved with the founding of any major region. Any nation would still be able to create a new region on their own, but it would be permanently passworded. Delegates could appoint an RO to exercise the following gate-keeping powers:

• Feeder delegates would gate-keep non-executive regions, with no limit on frequency. Founders of these regions would have full executive authority for the first year of their region's existence.
• Sinker delegates would gate-keep for Spotlight regions, with a frequency of 1 month.
• Warzone delegates would gate-keep what we now consider to be regular regions, with a frequency of 1 month.

Alternatively, we could just go with: The approval of a GCR delegate (or Founding RO) is necessary to found a new non-passworded region, and each GCR is temporally limited in how many such regions they can help create.

The point of this is to invite the would-be founders of publicly available regions to try involving themselves in the operations of a large region first, before going off on their own. It also carries the nice side-benefit of defining relationships between GCRs and UCRs, thus tying together the public areas of the game. Note that this specifically allow anyone to create a private region for them and their friends, but require social effort and negotiation to create a public region.

Anyways, I just wanted thoughts on this. I don't expect it to go anywhere, and I am content with trying to pursue the main proposal of this topic.

No.
For the umpteen-and-one'th time, R/D is not the be-all-and-end-all of NS, and players who don't want to be involved in that side of things should be free to do whatever they want (subject to the game's basic rules about obscenity, trolling, and so on, of course...) about their regions.

[Christian Confederation]

I like it, but a couple of suggestions.
1. A existing Region can become a spotlight, that way well established good regions don't have to close.
2. Password can stay up, since raiders are every where. The spotlight can be used to expand embassy lines.

[Americastrailia]

For the umpteen-and-one'th time, R/D is not the be-all-and-end-all of NS, and players who don't want to be involved in that side of things should be free to do whatever they want (subject to the game's basic rules about obscenity, trolling, and so on, of course...) about their regions.

I can think of plenty of criticisms of this idea I floated, but it certainly doesn't force anyone to play with R/D. It simply limits who can found a region for the purpose of growing a community to approval by an existing community. The goal is to help with overall activity game-wide, by concentrating would-be founders in existing regions matching their interests before going off to create one of their own. The winners here are existing regions, regardless of which part of the game they are built around. And anyone could still found a private region. If any community is affected negatively by this change, it would be R/D itself due to the increased difficulty of creating non-passworded jump-points.

I like it, but a couple of suggestions.
1. A existing Region can become a spotlight, that way well established good regions don't have to close.

How would the existence of spotlight regions lead to the closure of existing, good regions?

2. Password can stay up, since raiders are every where. The spotlight can be used to expand embassy lines.

The idea behind spotlight regions is essentially an exchange to help with gameplay. Founders of spotlight regions are getting the possibility for easy growth and quick influence, but at the price of being open to raids six months after founding. If we allow passwords on spotlight regions, it could only work at the price of no longer showing up on the spotlight list.

[The Church of Satan]

This is tangentially related to my proposal, but I am curious what people think of this other idea for modifying the rules of founding UCRs to involve GCRs more

Let's try to stay on topic though. That is a different proposal entirely.

I like it, but a couple of suggestions.
1. A existing Region can become a spotlight, that way well established good regions don't have to close.
2. Password can stay up, since raiders are every where. The spotlight can be used to expand embassy lines.

1.) Spotlight regions wouldn't affect pre-existing regions in any way that traditional UCRs don't already. So there's nothing to worry about on that front.
2.) I believe you don't quite understand the idea. I refer you to Americastralia's post just before this one. He sums it up quite well.

[Americastrailia]

I added a nice summary of the idea, as well as some questions I would like help addressing. There is one question in particular I would like to explore right now:

How do we order the spotlight regions?
Simplest and possibly most effective would be to order them by age, but it is worth considering other options:

1. Oldest first. This would create some stability, but also create an incentive for newer spotlights to try and destroy older ones.
2. Youngest first. This creates massive upfront value for new spotlight regions (pro), but means older regions' value degrades over time (con).
3. Dynamic random order. This would equalize the value of all spotlight regions at any given time.
4. Number of WA nations. More popular regions would be listed first.
5. Gatekeeper endorsements. Regions would be listed based on the warzone delegate's endorsement count at the time of the region's creation.
6. Founder Population. Older players' regions would be listed first.
7. World census rankings. This could encourage spotlight regions to be more unique compared to other spotlight regions.
8. Average time since last login of WA nations (anything within 1 day counts as zero). More active regions would be listed first.

I'm currently hung up on how to order the spotlight list. Simplicity is good, but there are so many ways it could be done that could be useful while also presenting a drawback. A hybrid system would be nice, but working that out seems fairly complex and non-intuitive.

One idea I am trying to hash out is this vague idea for "priority" to order the list. Priority works kind of like influence: it would be gained every major update based on various factors surrounding the region, and could decay, similar to GCR influence. New spotlight regions would start with a bank of priority that would quickly decay over the next six months.